[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0aa381e4-453d-4412-aec8-589f0f83c2fe@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 22:19:21 +0530
From: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
David Lechner
<dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>,
Andrew Ijano <andrew.ijano@...il.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 next 2/7] iio: sca3000: switch IRQ handling to devm
helpers
On 05/02/26 22:15, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 10:09:45PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>> On 05/02/26 21:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 05:12:08AM -0800, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> - if (spi->irq)
>>>> - free_irq(spi->irq, indio_dev);
>>>
>>> Do we need an irq member to be in the struct after this patch?
>>
>> I probably didn't understand that question fully.
>>
>> we still have a call to ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, spi->irq,
>> NULL,...) so we can't relaly get rid of the irq member I think,
>> did I understand your question right ?
>
> Yes. But now I realised that this is the external structure, and not the one
> the driver defines. Sorry for the noise.
>
Np, yes this is part of spi_device a more central structure. Thanks for
checking!
Regards,
Harshit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists